- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-238/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zimara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal — First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TA0238
62015TA0238
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 374/27
(Case T-238/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zimara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal - First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 374/40)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards ‘veterinary preparations’;
2.Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.